The Phantom

Have I been a 'bad boy' with all my debating lately on my websites? I think not, but I expressed the desire by email to a few supporters for a few of us to back off from such pursuits for awhile, while at the same time continuing to support our reciprocal links and commenters. I of course do not have control over outside commenters other than deciding whether or not to publish their comments. I cannot guarantee how I will need to approach a comment, but this article expresses my current mood and attitude. I debate at times for the sake of learning about the truth and defending the truth. I am more concerned with defending Biblical, Reformed theology, philosophically, than I am being an apologist for a Reformed, Calvinist position. I have never claimed to be a Calvinist.

However, many of my positions are Reformed and so after many years of intense study I am comfortable stating I am within the Reformed theological camp. Those of other views, Christian or non-Christian, liberal Christian or conservative Christian, are welcome. But, I do not want to argue on and on in circles. At times we need to simply state a case and then leave it at that, as we have made our best points and there is no point repeating them over and over. In other words, there is no point beating an opponent over the head. I am interested in loving others as much as I love myself (Mark 12, Matthew 22, Luke 10, Galatians 5). I will not tolerate ad hominem attacks. 

Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). Simon Blackburn explains that ad hominem is attempting to disprove what a person is stating by attacking the person, or less commonly by praising the person. Commonly it is a way of arguing forcefully or not, against a view without advancing the counter argument. Blackburn (1996: 24). This latter concept would be that of arguing against a held perspective without making any reasonable counter-arguments. 

From: logical fallacy 

Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem) Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion. ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. 

I will not, with God's help attack someone personally within the context of a debate or discussion in order to strengthen my case, because it does not work. I also will not accept this treatment in return. This is not to conclude that it is ad hominem to state that someone is 'this or is that' if it is accurate and out of the context of a debate and discussion. I can avoid the use of ad hominem against someone in a debate that is being 'a this or that', but I simply do not use a personal attack within the argument. So, yes, sometimes someone is being a jerk, but I do not use that as a form of argumentation.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

   

Autumn

Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem

Trekearth photo: Solva, Pembrokeshire, Wales 

Monday, September 22, 2008 The Phantom

Tuesday, October 20, 2015 Ad Hominem/Against the Man

Tuesday, April 04, 2017 Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial

Saturday, August 19, 2017 Tu quoque

Walton

Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). 

In other words, it is an informal fallacy, to use name-calling and abusive actions to attempt to win an argument. A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion.

Blackburn

Simon Blackburn explains that ad hominem is attempting to disprove what a person is stating by attacking the person, or less commonly by praising the person. Commonly it is a way of arguing forcefully or not, against a view without advancing the counter argument. Blackburn (1996: 24). This latter concept would be that of arguing against a held perspective without making any reasonable counter-arguments. 

Pirie

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Ad Hominem/Against the Man

'If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer.' Pirie (2006)(2015: 122). The author states that an insult in itself is not fallacious, (122) but ad hominem is used in a way to attempt to undermine an opponent's argument. (122). The argument is not treated by its merit. (122). 

Therefore, in my opinion, someone could be rightly and justly called a 'jerk' because he/she is acting in such a negative way in an argument and this would not be the use of the fallacious. An informal fallacy being the use of poor and invalid reasoning. The invalid structure of argument is a formal fallacy. But if someone is called a 'jerk' in an attempt to undermine the opponent's argument then it is fallacious. 

Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial 

With this fallacy 'the appeal is to the special circumstances of the person with whom one is arguing. Instead of trying to prove the contention true of false on the evidence, its acceptance is urged because of the position and interests of those appealed to.' (124).

Cited

'You can't accept the legitimacy of lending for profit. You are a Christian, and Christ drove out the money lenders from the temple.' (124). Pirie explains that the Christian is invited to agree because of Christian convictions. (124). I agree that this would be fallacious argumentation. Jesus Christ in the biblical context is removing the business of moneychanging and related banking from the temple. This should not be expanded to Christian theology and philosophy where all moneychanging, money lending and banking is therefore considered, sinful, immoral and unethical. 

In other words, banking outside of the temple, or in our modern context, the Christian Church, is not necessarily sinful, immoral and unethical. Interestingly, the British author also documents the example of nominal Christians that in reality do not follow biblical views in their personal lives. The nominal Christian could then be 'forced into a reluctant and resentful acquiescence you could never have gained otherwise.' (125). 

Problematically, many nominal Christians are biblically illiterate to the point where he/she may very well be unaware whether Jesus Christ's actions of removing moneychanging and banking from the temple, in the New Testament Gospels, would therefore require a modern-day Christian theology and philosophy that is anti-lending and anti-banking. Context is extremely important within Biblical Studies.

Tu quoque

A type of ad hominem.

Tu quoque means 'you also'. (201). This fallacy is committed by the claim that the proponent is guilty of what he/she accuses the opponent of. (201). This fallacy does not adequately deal with the subject under discussion. (202). Premises and conclusions do not reasonably deal with and resolve the subject under discussion. The truth or falsehood of the discussion is avoided and instead the background of the proponent, making the argument, is attacked by the opponent. (202). As well, the opponent may attempt to demonstrate inconsistency in the proponent's position, again without dealing without reasonably resolving the issue. (202). The previous views of the proponent are claimed to be inconsistent with present views. (202).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers (2016), New York,  Shelter Harbour Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SYNOPSIS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS (2010) Revised Standard Version, Edited by Kurt Aland, American Bible Society, New York.

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Arguing On The Internet

Lake Como, Italy-trekearth

Arguing On The Internet

Prefac

Edited on March 23, 2024.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Arguing On The Internet: Pirie

'In regard to arguing on the internet'. Pirie (2006)(2015: 22). Arguments can take place 'in the comments responses to blogs'. Pirie (22). I will add for 2024, on websites and on social media. Further he states 'Not many people who read blogs bother to go through the comments section, below them', (22). He explains that those who do comment are not likely a typical reader. (22). 'Interested minority' (22) is the what he states in regard to persons that comment. Those who comment may be very opinionated and have their minds made up and what takes place in comments is a form of 'jousting'. (22). As these types of readers are set in their views, the object in writing blog comments is not so much to change the views of others but to score intellectual points. (22).

As I have noted with the rise of Facebook and far more social media options, my Blogger website comments drastically declined over the years, to virtually nil. In fact, my Blogger website posts are previewed on a Facebook Business page, Russell Norman Murray, PhD which would more likely receive any related comments, but the number of comments are few.

Blogger pageviews for both this website and my other related Blogger website, Satire Und Theology. vary from year to year in amount, but according to official Blogger statistics, both websites still receive thousands of pageviews most months. I am fine with the change from basically a blog format to a website format, as I have transitioned from full-time student, part-time employee to full-time, government employee and part-time scholar. I still do the academic work, mostly on the weekends, and listening to messages and reading during the week, but frankly I do not have the time or energy for answering many comments. I need to also be more in-person social than while I was a student.

Pirie opines that in blog comments the 'level of courtesy is much lower than would be expected in face-to-face confrontation'. (22). True enough in many cases and it should be remembered by those claiming a public Christian faith, philosophy and walk that Biblical views on love, truth, morality and ethics would in no way be altered because an interaction was virtual and not actual! Similarity, those of non-Christian worldviews should also seek consistent morality and ethics in both offline and online contexts. The author mentions internet trolls and their ability to hide online and be abusive to online writers. (22). I reason there is too much 'hiding' online in many contexts, rather than dialogue, but being an internet troll is cowardly and distasteful, especially when ad hominem, against the person, attacks are used. I do realize that there is online fear in other contexts, such as women being defensive in protecting their identity and motives. 

I reason that many people hold to views too emotionally and subjectively, as opposed to seeking a more rational, objective approach to propositions/statements, and as well premises that lead to conclusions. I trust that rationally and objectively, everything that I have is from the Lord, and that everything I do not have is from the Lord. I therefore can read and listen to views I do not agree with rationally and objectively, not trusting primarily in myself as the source of truth, but in the Lord as the source of the truth. This gives me peace whether I agree or disagree with the views of others. The following verse from the NASB (and an interesting bonus, technical explanation) is at the core of my worldview.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) John 14: 6 

6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. 

Logos.com 

Cited 

'Did you ever notice this little asterisk in your New American Standard Bible? 

This is what the NASB says it’s doing: “A star (*) are [sic] used to mark verbs that are historical presents in the Greek which have been translated with an English past tense in order to conform to modern usage.” For example, instead of, “They go into Galilee,” which is a literal translation of the Greek, the NASB will have, “They went* into Galilee,” which is more natural in contemporary English.'

'This article was originally published in the January/February 2021 issue of Bible Study Magazine. Slight adjustments, such as title and subheadings, may be the addition of an editor.'

End citation

Pirie advises blog writers to keep blog comments short and factual. (22). Short comments are not difficult to present as the Blogger format is meant to limit the length. Being factual should be absolutely, positively essential for academic websites such as mine. Revising material where and when necessary. Publicly note it where and when necessary. The author also claims response should be 'immediate'. (23). Deal with an issue while relevant and I agree. Again, seeking to be rational and objective, in my case prayerfully, through grace through faith (notably Ephesians 1-2).

Ad hominem: Blackburn

Blackburn writes that ad hominem is an attempt to argue against a person by personal attack, less commonly by praising a person, or it may or may not be forceful attacks against a person's position but they do not advance matters intellectually against a person's beliefs and views. Blackburn (1996: 24).

Ad hominem: Walton

Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). In other words, it is an informal fallacy, to use name-calling and abusive actions to attempt to win an argument. A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion.

Ad hominem: Pirie

Ad Hominem/Against the Man 

'If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer.' Pirie (2006)(2015: 122). The author states that an insult in itself is not fallacious, (122) but ad hominem is used in a way to attempt to undermine an opponent's argument. (122). The argument is not treated by its merit. (122). Therefore, in my opinion, someone could be rightly and justly called a 'jerk' because he/she is acting in such a negative way in an argument and this would not be the use of the fallacious. An informal fallacy being the use of poor and invalid reasoning. The invalid structure of argument is a formal fallacy. But if someone is called a 'jerk' in an attempt to undermine the opponent's argument then it is fallacious. 

Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial 

With this fallacy 'the appeal is to the special circumstances of the person with whom one is arguing. Instead of trying to prove the contention true of false on the evidence, its acceptance is urged because of the position and interests of those appealed to.' (124). 

Cited

'You can't accept the legitimacy of lending for profit. You are a Christian, and Christ drove out the money lenders from the temple.' (124). Pirie explains that the Christian is invited to agree because of Christian convictions. (124). I agree that this would be fallacious argumentation. Jesus Christ in the biblical context is removing the business of moneychanging and related banking from the temple. This should not be expanded to Christian theology and philosophy where all moneychanging, money lending and banking is therefore considered, sinful, immoral and unethical. In other words, banking outside of the temple, or in our modern context, the Christian Church, is not necessarily sinful, immoral and unethical. Interestingly, the British author also documents the example of nominal Christians that in reality do not follow biblical views in their personal lives. The nominal Christian could then be 'forced into a reluctant and resentful acquiescence you could never have gained otherwise.' (125). Problematically, many nominal Christians are biblically illiterate to the point where he/she may very well be unaware whether Jesus Christ's actions of removing moneychanging and banking from the temple, in the New Testament Gospels, would therefore require a modern-day Christian theology and philosophy that is anti-lending and anti-banking. Context is extremely important within Biblical Studies. 

Tu quoque 

A type of ad hominem. Tu quoque means 'you also'. (201). This fallacy is committed by the claim that the proponent is guilty of what he/she accuses the opponent of. (201). This fallacy does not adequately deal with the subject under discussion. (202). Premises and conclusions do not reasonably deal with and resolve the subject under discussion. The truth or falsehood of the discussion is avoided and instead the background of the proponent, making the argument, is attacked by the opponent. (202). As well, the opponent may attempt to demonstrate inconsistency in the proponent's position, again without dealing without reasonably resolving the issue. (202). The previous views of the proponent are claimed to be inconsistent with present views. (202). 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic. 

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press. 

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

HARPUR, GEORGE (1986) Ephesians in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial

Windows: Ronda, Italy

Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial

I previously documented a related Pirie entry:

October 16 2015

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Ad Hominem/Against the Man 

'If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer.' Pirie (2006)(2015: 122).

The author states that an insult in itself is not fallacious, (122) but ad hominem is used in a way to attempt to undermine an opponent's argument. (122).

Yes, I have been reviewing the Pirie text this long!

Once I have completed the Pirie and Langer philosophy text reviews, I have several other new academic texts awaiting possible review. I do reason it very important to provide Biblical Studies entries, but as my PhD is in Theology and Philosophy of Religion, I also need to research and provide entries within those academic fields as well. I have employment at present, but wish to promote myself in all areas of possible work.

I realize that the Langer, Symbolic Logic text reviews can be very tedious, but in my reasoning, it is required reading for my work. This is a reason I provide various types of entries. I also provide Satire Und Theology entries which are hopefully, short and sweet.

Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial

With this fallacy 'the appeal is to the special circumstances of the person with whom one is arguing. Instead of trying to prove the contention true of false on the evidence, its acceptance is urged because of the position and interests of those appealed to.' (124).

Cited

'You can't accept the legitimacy of lending for profit. You are a Christian, and Christ drove out the money lenders from the temple.' (124).

Pirie explains that the Christian is invited to agree because of Christian convictions. (124).

I agree that this would be fallacious argumentation. Jesus Christ in the biblical context is removing the business of moneychanging and related banking from the temple. This should not be expanded to Christian theology and philosophy where all moneychanging, money lending and banking is therefore considered, sinful, immoral and unethical. In other words, banking outside of the temple, or in our modern context, the Christian Church, is not necessarily sinful, immoral and unethical.

Interestingly, the British author also documents the example of nominal Christians that in reality do not follow biblical views in their personal lives. The nominal Christian could then be 'forced into a reluctant and resentful acquiescence you could never have gained otherwise.' (125).

Problematically, many nominal Christians are biblically illiterate to the point where he/she may very well be unaware whether Jesus Christ's actions of removing moneychanging and banking from the temple, in the New Testament Gospels, would therefore require a modern-day Christian theology and philosophy that is anti-lending and anti-banking.

Context is extremely important within Biblical Studies.

Ad Hominem/Against the Man

Facebook and Travel+Leisure: Possibly Turkey

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

'If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer.' Pirie (2006)(2015: 122). The author states that an insult in itself is not fallacious, (122) but ad hominem is used in a way to attempt to undermine an opponent's argument. (122).

So, therefore, in my opinion, someone could be rightly and justly called a 'jerk' because he/she is acting in such a negative way in an argument and this would not be the use of the fallacious. A fallacy being the use of poor and invalid reasoning; as well it is the use of an invalid structure of argument.

But if someone is called a 'jerk' in an attempt to undermine the opponent's argument then it is fallacious.

The argument is not treated by its merit. (122).

Blackburn explains that ad hominem is an attempt to argue against a person via personal attack, it is less commonly used by praising a person, or it may or may not be used by forceful attacks against a person's position but they do not advance matters intellectually against a person's beliefs and views. Blackburn (1996: 24).

Douglas Walton writes that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Tu quoque

University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2004

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Tu quoque means 'you also'. (201). This fallacy is committed by the claim that the proponent is guilty of what he/she accuses the opponent of. (201).

This fallacy does not adequately deal with the subject under discussion. (202). Premises and conclusions do not reasonably deal with and resolve the subject under discussion. The truth or falsehood of the discussion is avoided and instead the background of the proponent, making the argument, is attacked by the opponent. (202).

As well, the opponent may attempt to demonstrate inconsistency in the proponent's position, again without dealing without reasonably resolving the issue. (202). The previous views of the proponent are claimed to be inconsistent with present views. (202).

This appears to be a form of ad hominem and Logically fallacious agrees:

Logically fallacious

Ad Hominem (Tu quoque) argumentum ad hominem tu quoque (also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)

Description:

Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true. Therefore, Y must not be true.

My example:

Proponent: You should consider abandoning your Hostess, Twinkies and Ding Dong, diet.
Opponent: What do you know? You live a 'fatastic', 'flabulous' life!

Non-fallacious

Proponent: You should consider abandoning your Hostess, Twinkies and Ding Dong, diet.
Opponent: Yes, I should consider minimizing Hostess to Saturday afternoon snack.

The opponent should examine the truthfulness or falseness of the proponent's premise, regardless of the proponent's actions.

(I have not eaten Hostess since I was a child in the 1980's)

Abusive Analogy

Google+

Abusive Analogy

Preface

Revised on 20250601

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Abusive Analogy

From Pirie

'The fallacy of abusive analogy is a highly specialized version of the ad hominem argument. Instead of the arguer being insulted directly, an analogy is drawn which is calculated to bring him into scorn or disrepute. The opponent or his behaviour is compared with something which will elicit an unfavourable response toward him from the audience.' (29).

Pirie provides the example:

'If science admits no certainties, then a scientist has no more certain knowledge of the universe than does a Hottentot running through the bush.' (29).

'(This is true, but is intended as abuse so that the hearer will be more sympathetic to the possibility of certain knowledge.) (29).'

This statement is not necessarily true, it is using hyperbole. Theoretically, a scientist could speculate on the existence of outer space, without being certain, while the Khoekhoe (more accurate term) may or may not, have an understanding of the concept of outer space, but also without certainty.

In other words, with Pirie's explanation, science using inductive reasoning, testing and empirical research may not claim certainty, at least in some cases, but there is still considerable, significant knowledge that has been obtained through the scientific method. A lack of certainty with inductive scientific reasoning, does not for example, by default make certain deductive philosophical and theological reasoning certain.

An analogy is not effective here as inductive and deductive reasoning succeeds or fails based on the trueness of premises and conclusions presented.

Blackburn explains that arguing by analogy is stating that since things are alike in some ways they will 'probably' (14) be alike in others. (14). The use of 'probably' here is key. Often arguing by analogy produces some similarities and some differences rendering the argument unsound.

If such an argument is used comparing only the things certainly alike it is reasonable.

However, Blackburn cites Wittgenstein, noting it can be irresponsible to generalize one case. (14).

In other words, generalizing by argument of analogy can be irresponsible. 

Wittgenstein 

Wittgenstein’s Generalisations About Generalisations: Medium-Dec 12, 2019

Paul Austin Murphy 

Cites

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1912-1978) Ludwig Wittgenstein's Blue Book, University of Pittsburgh (depositor), University of Pittsburgh.

https://digital.library.pitt.edu/islandora/object/pitt%3A31735061817932

Digital Library

“Our craving for generality has [as one] source … our preoccupation with the method of science. I mean the method of reducing the explanation of natural phenomena to the smallest possible number of primitive natural laws; and, in mathematics, of unifying the treatment of different topics by using a generalization. Philosophers constantly see the method of science before their eyes, and are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer in the way science does. This tendency is the real source of metaphysics, and leads the philosopher into complete darkness. I want to say here that it can never be our job to reduce anything to anything, or to explain anything. Philosophy really is ‘purely descriptive’.” 

'I want to say here that it can never be our job to reduce anything to anything, or to explain anything. Philosophy really is ‘purely descriptive’.”'

A philosophical problem here, potentially at least, as this is just a small section of Wittgenstein's work and explanation, is of consistency. Wittgenstein is explaining something. He is not simply providing a description, but is offering an opinion. 

However, generalization within abusive analogy is fallacious because an ad hominem, personal attack, analogy, is concerned with attacking a person making the statement or premise (s) with a conclusion. When in contrast, what is important for accuracy is the trueness of a statement, or premise (s) and conclusion presented. Using an analogy with a generalization stating 'If science admits no certainties, then a scientist has no more certain knowledge of the universe than does a Hottentot running through the bush.' (29); this is generalizing the knowledge of the scientist within analogy. A lack of certainty does not equate to lack of knowledge, in the case of the scientist. The scientist may hold to many ideas as probably right, that may or may not, one day may be shown to be certainly right.

Wittgenstein: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive-Spring 2025 Edition 

By

Anat Biletzki 

Anat Matar

Cited 

'It is here that Wittgenstein’s rejection of general explanations, and definitions based on sufficient and necessary conditions, is best pronounced. Instead of these symptoms of the philosopher’s “craving for generality,” he points to ‘family resemblance’ as the more suitable analogy for the means of connecting particular uses of the same word. There is no reason to look, as we have done traditionally—and dogmatically—for one, essential core in which the meaning of a word is located and which is, therefore, common to all uses of that word. We should, instead, travel with the word’s uses through “a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing” (PI 66). Family resemblance also serves to exhibit the lack of boundaries and the distance from exactness that characterize different uses of the same concept. Such boundaries and exactness are the definitive traits of form—be it Platonic form, Aristotelian form, or the general form of a proposition adumbrated in the Tractatus. It is from such forms that applications of concepts can be deduced, but this is precisely what Wittgenstein now eschews in favor of appeal to similarity of a kind with family resemblance.'  

Generalities lead to error when they produce reasoning that fails to embrace true statements and or true premise (s) and conclusion. Better to specifically review and produce statements and or premise (s) and conclusion for accuracy in truth.

In regards to Wittgenstein rejecting definitions based on sufficient and necessary conditions: 

Texas State University/Department of Philosphy Confusion of Necessary with a Sufficient Condition 

Cited 

'A causal fallacy you commit this fallacy when you assume that a necessary condition of an event is sufficient for the event to occur. A necessary condition is a condition that must be present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will produce the event. A necessary condition must be there, but it alone does not provide sufficient cause for the occurrence of the event. Only the sufficient grounds can do this. In other words, all of the necessary elements must be there.' 

'Department of Philosophy

Dr. Craig Hanks, Chair'

I reason

Sufficient conditions mean all of the necessary conditions exist for an event

Wittgenstein: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive-Spring 2025 Edition 

My add below (PI):

• Philosophical Investigations, 1953, G.E.M. Anscombe and R. Rhees (eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Philosophical Investigations (PI), 4th edition, 2009, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte (eds. and trans.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• ---

Primary sources noted on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive 

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Bibliography 

The Big Typescript: TS 213, German English Scholars’ Edition, 2005, C. Grant Luckhardt and Maximilian E. Aue (trans.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

• The Blue and Brown Books (BB), 1958, Oxford: Blackwell.
• Culture and Value, 1980, G. H. von Wright (ed.), P. Winch (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 1, 1982, vol. 2, 1992, G. H. von Wright and H. Nyman (eds.), trans. C. G. Luckhardt and M. A. E. Aue (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• “A Lecture on Ethics”, 1965, The Philosophical Review, 74: 3–12.
• Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief, 1966, C. Barrett (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Letters to C. K. Ogden with Comments on the English Translation of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1973, G. H. von Wright (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Letters to Russell, Keynes and Moore, 1974, G. H. von Wright and B. F. McGuinness (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Ludwig Wittgenstein: Dictating Philosophy (To Francis Skinner – The Wittgenstein-Skinner Manuscripts), 2020, Arthur Gibson and Niamh O’Mahony (eds.), Cham: Springer.
• Ludwig Wittgenstein: Public and Private Occasions, 2003, J. Klagge and A. Nordmann (eds.), Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Ludwig Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle: Conversations Recorded by Friedrich Waismann (VC), 1979, B. F. McGuinness (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Notebooks 1914–1916, 1961, G. H. von Wright and G. E. M. Anscombe (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• “Notes Dictated to G. E. Moore”, in Notebooks 1914–1916.
• “Notes for Lectures on ‘Private Experience’ and ‘Sense Data’”, 1968, Philosophical Review, 77: 275–320.
• On Certainty, 1969, G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright (eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe and D. Paul (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Philosophical Grammar, 1974, R. Rhees (ed.), A. Kenny (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Philosophical Investigations, 1953, G.E.M. Anscombe and R. Rhees (eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Philosophical Investigations (PI), 4th edition, 2009, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte (eds. and trans.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Philosophical Occasions, 1993, J. Klagge and A. Nordmann (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Philosophical Remarks, 1964, R. Rhees (ed.), R. Hargreaves and R. White (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• ProtoTractatus—An Early Version of Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus, 1971, B. F. McGuinness, T. Nyberg, G. H. von Wright (eds.), D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness (trans.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Remarks on Colour, 1977, G. E. M. Anscombe (ed.), L. McAlister and M. Schaettle (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• “Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough”, 1967, R. Rhees (ed.), Synthese, 17: 233–253.
• Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, 1956, G. H. von Wright, R. Rhees and G. E. M. Anscombe (eds.), G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell, revised edition 1978.
• Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, 1980, vol. 1, G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright (eds.), G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.), vol. 2, G. H. von Wright and H. Nyman (eds.), C. G. Luckhardt and M. A. E. Aue (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• “Some Remarks on Logical Form”, 1929, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 9 (Supplemental): 162–171.
• Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP), 1922, C. K. Ogden (trans.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published as “Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung”, in Annalen der Naturphilosophische, XIV (3/4), 1921.
• Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1961, D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness (trans.), New York: Humanities Press.
• The Voices of Wittgenstein: The Vienna Circle, 2003, Gordon Baker (ed.), Gordon Baker, Michael Mackert, John Connolly and Vasilis Politis (trans.), London: Routledge.
• Wiener Ausgabe [Vienna Edition, vols. 1, 2, 3, 5], 1993–1995, Michael Nedo (ed.), Vienna: Springer.
• Wittgenstein: Conversations, 1949–1951, 1986, O. K. Bouwsma, J. L. Kraft and R. H. Hustwit (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Wittgenstein in Cambridge: Letters and Documents 1911–1951, 2008, Brian McGuinness (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Wittgenstein Source Bergen Nachlass Edition, 2009, Alois Pichler (ed.), Bergen: Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen.
• Wittgenstein: Lectures, Cambridge 1930–1933, From the Notes of G.E. Moore, 2016, David G. Stern, Brian Rogers, and Gabriel Citron (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wittgenstein’s Family Letters: Corresponding with Ludwig,, 2021, Brian McGuinness (ed.), London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishers.
• Wittgenstein’s Lectures, Cambridge 1930–1932, 1980, D. Lee (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Wittgenstein’s Lectures, Cambridge 1932–1935, 1979, A. Ambrose (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Wittgenstein’s Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, 1976, C. Diamond (ed.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Wittgenstein’s Lectures on Philosophical Psychology 1946– 47, 1988, P. T. Geach (ed.), London: Harvester.
• Wittgenstein’s Nachlass: The Bergen Electronic Edition, 2000, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wittgenstein’s Notes on Logic, 2009, Michael Potter (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wittgenstein’s Whewell’s Court Lectures: Cambridge, 1938–1941, From the Notes by Yorick Smythies, 2017, Volker Munz and Bernard Ritter (eds.), Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
• Zettel, 1967, G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright (eds.), G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• The Collected Manuscripts of Ludwig Wittgenstein on Facsimile CD Rom, 1997, The Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

---

Bibliography

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1912-1978) Ludwig Wittgenstein's Blue Book, University of Pittsburgh (depositor), University of Pittsburgh.

https://digital.library.pitt.edu/islandora/object/pitt%3A31735061817932

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

O'Conell Bridge, Dublin: trekearth

Fleet Street, London: trekearth

Poisoning the well (Special Canada 150th Edition)

Powerhouse theatre

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

This fallacy discredits the opposition before they have stated a single word. (163). At its crudest form it consists in making unpleasant comments about intellectual opposition. (163).

Pirie explains as example (163) that if a person states that everyone other than an idiot can reason that not enough money is spent on education, this person poisons the well for someone that suggests enough money is spent on education.

Canada 150th Anniversary fallacy, examples

American: A nation that does not hold to a republic, in our case, a constitutional federal republic as a form of government, is a nation of idiots!

Canadian: We do not hold to a republic, as a form of government, we hold to a federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy.

British: We do not hold to a republic, as a form of government, we hold to a parliamentary constitutional monarchy.
---

I am not an expert on political science. But from intellectuals and academics I have heard and read, there are opinions that the American political system is superior for maintaining freedom and democracy, while others reason a British (Canada included) parliamentary system provides more freedom and democracy. It is difficult to measure in many cases.

I do not claim to know the answer, definitively and definitely, but it seems to me that often the nature of laws passed within those systems and societies and how they are regulated will have more to do with the level of freedom and democracy, than the technical systems used.

The levels of freedom of religion, for example, would largely depend on how a constitution, if there is one, is interpreted, and the laws sanctioned by governments and societies within a system.

A constitution, as in the United States of America or Canada, is not a guarantee of greater religious freedom.
---

Canadian: Any nation that does not have hockey as its favourite sport, is a nation of idiots!

American: Our favourite sport is football (National Football League).

British: Our favourite sport is football, real football, not what the Americans call football.
---

I reason this fallacy uses ad hominem attacks (against the person). Logically fallacious agrees:

Logically fallacious

'Poisoning the Well (also known as: discrediting, smear tactics)

Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.

Logical Form: Adverse information (be it true or false) about person 1 is presented. Therefore, the claim(s) of person 1 will be false.'

Religion, Ethics, and Blogging

Blueberry farm, Surrey, BC Religion, Ethics, and Blogging 

I have been in email contact with a fellow Christian blogger who has a site which examines and critiques a major world religion with more than a million adherents, according to adherents.com. 

This blog appears to point out some of the differences between Biblical Christianity and the world religion. This person informed me that someone had set up what I would view as a satirical parody blog of the Christian blogger’s site, which used a similar colour scheme, the Christian blogger’s picture and name, and an unflattering URL title. I urged this person to complain to Blogger and at least have the Christian blogger’s picture removed from the satirical parody site. This person stated that a complaint had been made before with Blogger and would be made again. Thankfully, the satirical parody site has been removed and is off the internet, at least for now. I think that the use of this person’s photo was unethical, because there was no disclaimer mentioned that I could see that clearly stated that the blog was a satirical parody and not an actual website from the Christian blogger. Simon Blackburn primarily defines ethics as the study of concepts within practical reasoning which includes ideas concerning good, right, duty, obligation, virtue, freedom, rationality, and choice. Blackburn (1996: 126). I would think that since dishonesty and misrepresentation were used in the satirical parody blog that this is not the use of the good, ethically speaking, but instead the use of improper ethics. Satire is hard hitting humour that makes folly of another’s view. The idea is that by ridiculing someone’s falsehoods, a truth can be demonstrated in contrast. Putting the above story aside, here are some of the philosophical problems created by someone who attempts to defend their religion or attack another’s religion unethically. 

For this article I will use the story as a framework, but I do realize that the roles could be reversed. This is not an exhaustive list. 

1. If a satirical parody blog is established to demonstrate supposed falsehoods in the material of a Christian’s blog, then it must use proper ethics. However, if in the process of trying to demonstrate falsehoods, the publishers of a satirical parody blog pretend to be the Christian blogger without using a disclaimer, then the satirical parody blog publisher’s credibility is severely damaged.

2. The publisher of the satirical parody blog may or may not actually be a member, adherent, or sympathizer of the world religion being examined and critiqued by the Christian blogger. However, for many who understand the falsehoods being presented by the satirical parody site, it will be assumed that the publisher is an adherent of the religion being criticized by the Christian. The unethical behaviour of the publisher will influence some observers to question the ethics of common people who are adherents of this world religion. I realize that all religious groups, including Christian ones, have adherents that habitually commit unethical acts as a lifestyle, and this does not mean that most or all the adherents are this way, but unfortunately in the eyes of some observers they will have a negative view of some or perhaps all within the world religion. A satirical parody blog’s use of falsehoods is basically bad press for the world religion being critiqued by a Christian blogger even if the publisher of the satirical parody site is not an actual adherent of the world religion, or is simply one of a few people within that religious group who is unethical. 

3. Observers on the internet who realize that a satirical parody site was established with falsehoods may begin to question the ethics of the founders and leaders of that world religion. The dishonesty of one possible adherent does not mean that the ethics of the founders and leaders of the world religion are wrong, but this will raise questions in the minds of some observers, if not many. At the same time the ethics of the founders and leaders of a religion are questioned, so may their doctrines. 

4. If a satirical parody blog lacks significant reasonable counter argumentation to a Christian blogger’s examination and critique of the world religion, it does not give the satirical parody site much credibility. Now the fact that the publisher does not reasonably defend the world religion does not make it untrue, but if the world religion is understood to be true by the publisher then it should be worth defending through reason for the publisher. Certainly if the publisher cannot defend the criticized world religion, then the site should present a humble approach in regard to religious dialogue. The publisher should acknowledge that there is much more that needs to be learned, and I as well admit that a humble attitude is a good thing to have for those of us who have been involved in religious studies for years. A good approach for a satirical parody blog is to openly explain what it is and then use argumentation to counter what is being said on a Christian blogger’s site. 

5. A satirical parody blog that uses dishonesty and falsehoods by misrepresenting itself may appear to be intolerant. The fact that it has to use falsehoods against a Christian blogger would seem to indicate the possibility that the publisher of the satirical parody blog cannot tolerate the critical reviews of the world religion and therefore must attempt to discredit the critic. A tolerant approach would in no way mean that the publisher of the satirical parody site agrees with or accepts the views of the Christian blogger, but it means that the publisher will not harass the work of the Christian blogger or use falsehoods in an attempt to discredit the critic. Tolerance is defined by J.E. Wood Junior, as the indulgence of belief or conduct other than one’s own. This would include respect for the opinions and practices of others when they are in conflict with one’s own. Wood (1996: 1098). I think that tolerance is for the most part essential for dialogue between people of different religious views to take place. This tolerance in no way means that all religious philosophies must be viewed as true, rather people are respected for holding a religious view even if views are considered false by others on several points. Must all religious philosophies be tolerated? I think not, if a religion advocates murder for example, it should not be tolerated. So, I do not think that religions that offer human sacrifice should be tolerated. Jesus Christ as both God and man was the sacrifice for sins, but as God he has the power and right to take someone’s life, so I admit he has the right to offer himself as a human sacrifice on the cross for the sins of humanity.

6. If a site calls a critic ignorant or an idiot without the use of reasonable argumentation against the critic’s views, this quite possibly could be ad hominem. Blackburn defines ad hominem as attempting to disprove what a person holds by attacking the person (less commonly, supporting a person's contention by praising the person), or, more generally arguing in a way that may or may not be forceful against a person's particular position, but does not advance matters for those who do not hold that person's particular combination of beliefs. Blackburn (1996: 23-24). This type of approach is viewed as a fallacy, which is a false notion. There is an ad hominem attack in one of the comments on this blog, and I left it on the site in order to demonstrate it’s fallacious nature. The type of attack does not in a reasonable way disprove the assertions or arguments of the person being attacked, nor does it help to prove the assertions or arguments of the attacker. 

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Argumentum Ad’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press 

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Ethics’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WOOD J.E. JUNIOR. (1996) ‘Tolerance’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Pray Harder!

Central, Wales

1 John 5:14-15 from the New American Standard Bible

And this is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to his will, He hears us.

And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked before Him.

Henry Clarence Thiessen writes that asking things according to God’s will is an aspect of abiding and having confidence in God. Thiessen (1956: 399). It suggests that the person praying has a correct condition of the heart. Thiessen (1956: 399). In his article, Theology of Prayer, Alan Richardson explains that from Jesus’ perspective, all of our prayers are answered, but not necessarily in the way we would have chosen. Richardson (1999: 458). D.G. Bloesch notes that God wants his followers to be in partnership with him, but prayer is fundamentally about sharing personal needs with God and being conformed to his divine will and purposes. Bloesch (1996: 867).

I reason that theology from 1 John 5:14-15, should conclude that Christians should ask God that they will pray and make requests along the lines of God’s will. Prayer should be primarily made for personal fellowship with God, and secondarily for personal requests. Even if an individual Christian is primarily being guided by the Holy Spirit in life, there is no guarantee that each and every heard prayer request will be answered according to the will of the human follower, but will be answered according to God’s will and purposes.

On Sunday, I had a discussion with a well-meaning young woman at church. She is one of these people that is always trying to be positive. She was telling me how she had been very down in an earlier part of her life and she prayed and God significantly lifted her spirits. She strongly believes that the Lord assisted her, and I am not trying to intellectually challenge this claim. My disagreement with her is when she tries to make her experience, theology for every case. She stated that in regard to me being single, I should not discuss or list legitimate reasons why I am single, but simply pray about it. I informed her that I have prayed about it for more than 20 years, and that God is sovereign and does not have to answer my prayers the way I want them to be answered. She then stated, pray harder! I am not using ad hominem here and attacking her personally with a name, but this really struck me as ding-dong theology. I am basically stating that it is foolish theology. God seemingly answered her prayer and gave her significant blessings when dealing with problems, but many believers throughout the ages, and today, have many problems and her theology is presumptuous to assume that persons simply need to pray harder to overcome difficulties. In regard to theodicy and the problem of evil, this type of theology is an example of the difficulty of placing too much emphasis on human free will, instead of God’s sovereignty, as if in every case, persons are suffering because they are doing something wrong, and not praying hard enough. 1 John 5:14-15 does not state that if we pray hard enough all of our prayers will be answered to our satisfaction, it states that our prayers will be heard when made within God’s will. Requests, as Richardson states, will be answered, but not necessarily according to what we as Christians desire. It must be remembered in regard to theodicy and the problem of evil, that God meets the needs of Christians in order to fulfill his purposes, and not necessarily in order to provide maximal human fulfillment in this present earthly realm.

BLOESCH, D.G. (1996) ‘Prayer’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.) Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

RICHARDSON, ALAN (1999) ‘Prayer, Theology of’ in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press Ltd.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.


My latest Facebook Graffiti

The Tin Man/Ethical Superiority

Wikipedia: Original novel

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Ethical Superiority

Pirie:

"It is not a fallacy to be ethically superior to your opponent. It is fallacy to assume you are without supporting evidence. And the evidence must be more compelling than the fact that your opponent disagrees with you.' (92).

With apologies to the fundamentalists; with my first employment post-Secondary school, a mentor in the insurance field, taught me to never assume, because:

ass/u/me

I have taken this life lesson and applied it to my academic work.

This is similar to my concept of not guessing in academia, as much as possible. 

Back to Pirie:

One party assumes to be ethical with a position and therefore the other party with a contrary position is assumed unethical. (92). This is also transferred to related morality.

But a different worldview or different opinion on a subject, does not necessarily make either position ethical or unethical.

Pire reasons this has also been called the 'Tin Man' fallacy as in the Tin Man, from the Wizard of Oz (1939) has no heart. (93). This is opposed to the 'Straw Man' fallacy. (93). The Straw Man fallacy will be discussed in a future entry, but it misrepresents an opponent's position, and then knocks that misrepresented position down. (193).

Straw Man attacks can be connected to personal (ad hominem) attacks, as in producing fictional intellectual attacks and as well, personal attacks versus an opponent.

The fallacious implementation of Tin Man/Ethical Superiority approach is easy to imagine.

The Christian accuses someone of a contrary worldview and that same worldview of being unethical and immoral. The person of a non-Christian worldview condemns the Christian and biblical and gospel views as being unethical and immoral.

However, reasonable ethical standards need to be established and then a breaking of these ethics, reasonably established for a rational critique to occur.

Not assumed. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy). 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

The Tin Man v The Straw Man

Wikipedia: Original novel

The Tin Man v The Straw Man (Ethical Superiority & Mispresenting an Opponent's Position, fallacies)

Preface

The main source for this article is...

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

I reviewed this Pirie text, entry by entry, over roughly a couple of years, online. As I am editing my website articles for entries on academia.edu, I noticed that within the Pirie text, the Straw Man entry referenced the Tim Man entry. This Canadian holiday weekend, I therefore decided to create a new website article as my template for the academia.edu entry with a review of the two fallacies combined.

The Tin Man/Ethical Superiority fallacy

Pirie:

"It is not a fallacy to be ethically superior to your opponent. It is fallacy to assume you are without supporting evidence. And the evidence must be more compelling than the fact that your opponent disagrees with you.' (92).

With my first employment post-Secondary school, a mentor in the insurance field, taught me to never assume, because it makes an:

ass/u/me

I have taken this life lesson and applied it to my academic work. This is similar to my concept of not guessing in academia, as much as possible. 

Back to Pirie:

One party assumes to be ethical with a position and therefore the other party with a contrary position is assumed unethical. (92). This is also transferred to related morality. But a different worldview or different opinion on a subject, does not necessarily make either position ethical or unethical. Pire reasons this has also been called the 'Tin Man' fallacy as in the Tin Man, from the Wizard of Oz (1939) has no heart. (93). 

This is opposed to the 'Straw Man' fallacy. (93). The Straw Man fallacy misrepresents an opponent's position, and then knocks that misrepresented position down. (193). Straw Man attacks can be connected to personal (ad hominem) attacks, as in producing fictional intellectual attacks and as well, personal attacks versus an opponent.

The fallacious implementation of Tin Man/Ethical Superiority approach is easy to imagine. The Christian accuses someone of a contrary worldview and that same worldview of being unethical and immoral. The person of a non-Christian worldview condemns the Christian and biblical and gospel views as being unethical and immoral. However, reasonable ethical standards need to be established and then a breaking of these ethics, reasonably established for a rational critique to occur.

Not assumed. 

The Straw Man fallacy

Once again, the straw man fallacy occurs when one misrepresents an opponent's position; this is created to knock down the opponent's position. (193).

Example from my Columbia Bible College experience (Paraphrased).

Student: You do not hold to Mennonite non-resistance and pacifism.

Student: You support the maintaining of law and order through state force (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2).

Student: You support 'just war.'

Student: Therefore, you support 'preventive war', under the guise of 'just war', theory.

Undergrad Russ: No, I clearly stated that I do not support, 'preventive war' theory. Nor do I think every war defined by governments as 'just war' is always a just war.

Student; Yes, you do.

Undergrad Russ: No, I clearly do not based on what I have stated. You are twisting the terminology I have used. Further, you should not be attempting to tell me what I believe.

The student misrepresented my law and order and just war position as equating with preventive war theory. This student built a straw man.

Traditionally the straw man deliberately overstates an opponent's position. (193). This was done by my opponent at Columbia Bible College. The adversary is portrayed as the extremist. (193). As was I falsely portrayed, in my example, as I did not hold to the classic Anabaptist/Mennonite position. Therefore, I disagreed the student that using the straw man. The real position of the opponent is not adequately reasoned with when this fallacy is used. (193).

This undergrad example, in my humble opinion, is also an example of lazy intellectual reasoning, which should be avoided. If one is to engage in debate, be prepared and be open-minded. An opponent's position should be evaluated reasonably and with significant rationality.

The straw man will be frequently used in religion and philosophy debates. At a different church than I attend now, a teacher and proponent of incompatiblism stated to me that 'You do not want to be a compatibilist', as he implied that equated to a hard determinist. In other words, anyone that holds to any form of determinism is a hard determinist. This is academically and philosophically, false and a misrepresentation of my position. I explained:

Incompatibilism

There can be no antecedent (prior) conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Feinberg (1994: 64). With this view, freedom is incompatible with contingently sufficient nonsubsequent conditions of an action. The contingently sufficient nonsubsequent actions would be God making people in such a way that they only freely did one thing or another. Feinberg (1994: 60).

Hard determinism v Soft determinism/Compatibilism

Within hard determinism God (theistic model) would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism God would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause.

Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. Pojman (1996: 596). Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (2001) explains that with this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637).

Technically, hard determinism and soft determinism/compatibilism are not defined identically and in fact have significant differences.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy). 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

My mentioned previous articles 

Monday, October 17, 2016 The Tin Man/Ethical Superiority

Monday, August 07, 2017 The Straw Man